How do you deal with power hungry players?

If they want to make their own country, put your special snowflake NPC's and super-special GM's story aside, and let them make their own country.

Every campaign i've ran, i've ended up tossing half of the campaign notes/plans out the window by the end of the first night. It happens. Roll with it. Adapt the plot points you wanted to introduce in a way that interacts with what the players are wanting to do.

Example. Your 'must include special GM story steel donut' is a necromancer raising an army of skeletons in the east.

Meanwhile the players all want to fuck off to the west and become pirates.

Solution. Necromancer defeated in the east, flees to the west, and takes up piracy on a ship of the dead in order to raise funds for a second war in the east, thus becoming the player's new main rival for the limited number of commerce ships available to raid.

Solution the second. The necromancer WINS in the east, all that juicy commerce ship traffic begins to dry up, and the pirate kingdoms are now the only thing standing between the unending tide of the undead and the rest of the world further west.

Solution the third. Necromancer gets bogged down in stalemate fighting kingdoms in the east, decides to take advantage of all the piracy in the west to raise an army using all the bodies buried at sea. Pirate strongholds begin to go silent one by one, as a legion of the undead marches out onto land, kills everyone, takes their bodies, and retreats. Leaving food, treasure, and all the rum alone. Could be a nice mystery for the players to solve, when they return to their favorite port to sell some booty and find a ghost town.

tl;dr - Accept and adapt.

Let them do it.
Any apparent progress they make with their schemes is purely because they're being set up as patsies by the competent, politically powerful clique that wants the same thing.
It's great to be able to put a price on their heads as "traitors" and derail their plans by blaming them for stuff that they planned to do but hadn't got around to yet...

I'd actually be happy if a player wanted to make a big impact on the setting instead of just following the rails.

players who want to make an "impact" by breaking the setting are shitheads.

This

I would play all three of those arcs.

All the same time.

I regularly play one of those murderhobos aspiring to be king. You're dropping the ball if you can't get them to dance in the palm of your hand.

Just drop hints that the questlines and plot hooks will lead them to power. Seriously. You know they want the carrot, just put it on a stick and lead them around.

Yes it was a retarded story of the players enjoying a campaign and then the GM throwing crap in at the last second to try and get revenge for the players "ruining" his campaign.

As for the OP it depends.
>If it is the entire party they may prefer building up an empire to whatever plot you had in mind for the campaign.
>If it is one player you can talk to them about following the main quest or have their rewards take the form of ranks, titles, and wealth thus by following your campaign they gain power.

>breaking the setting
Fucking worldbuilder shit

If your setting can't adapt to the will of the PC, your setting is shit. Go write a book. It's not the place to put your special snowflake NPC or your special snowflake realm.

make them read berserk

Exactly fucking this. They want to do it but OP wants to take away the player agency and turn them into characters in a fucking novel. The player's have made clear what they want, now all of them want that, why don't you roll with it, there are plenty of supplements (i'm assuming you're playing D&D) to make it happen. Look for D&D like Empires and War by Alderac Games, Fields of Blood (forgot the publisher) and The Black Company (again forgot the publisher) for D&D or play ACKS and let them build their empire and ascend to power. Otherwise you might as well write a novel and make the characters do what you want.Let them take up becoming pirates and go on adventures, don't railroad them, railroading is the worst thing a GM can do.

Adapt your story to what the players want you dumb faggot.
Repurpose your stupid fucking NPCs, plotlines, and hooks according to what adventures they wanna go on. It’s not hard to draw parallels.
Have your villain(s) threaten the domain that your players establish later.

Fucking Christ, I wish my players would be more interested in politics and whatever, they always wanna explore different fucking places and want super detailed treks through boring empty forests to get to the dungeons. If I could keep them in one area and have everything revolve around their immediate actions, if they had FUCKING MOTIVATION that would be cool.

But shitty faggot dickstick DMs like OP need to write their novel-campaigns which get shared on tumblr and reddit and “inspire” my players to do “epic” shit.

Tell them that's not the campaign you want to run. Pretty simple.

OP lemme put it as simply as I can.

If you think this is a problem that means you don't wanna run those kinds of games. That means you tell the player very simply:

"I don't wanna run a political game where you're trying to gain power from running a country. If you want to play that kind of game you have two options. Don't and make a character who follows the kind of game I want to run, OR you can find another DM to run the game you want. The choice is yours."

And if the guy complains and throws a shitfit? Then you're in the right and you can kick him out. If the other players agree with him? Then you can tell them okay, one of them can DM and you can go play Overwatch or something until they either find another DM or they stop being a bunch of whiners and wanna play what you wanna play.

It's that simple OP.

...

The levels of entitlement in this thread are staggering. I mean, it's always been a problem with Veeky Forums, but jesus christ, this is bad.

Jesus Rollercoasting Christ, THIS.

If you can't think up a way to adapt the story you want to GM to the game the players want to play, you don't have the skills or temperament necessary to be GM.

>this is how ya do it

I don't let them

Because while they SAY they want to do those things, when I finally close up the adventure that I wrote for that week so that the players can go in whatever direction they want (I get everyone here are amazing at improv skills, but I'd like to at least have SOME prep time) and ask them "Okay so what do you want to do?"

"Uh... I don't know... I guess we try to sneak around and kill the king?"

They're dumb as rocks when left tot heir own devices. Not typical of game groups, but my group certainly is. When I lean on them to move the game they inevitably go "Well let's go back to that quest we had" and they forget about power plays for a while.

My group SAYS they want sandboxy games but in reality they need a basic framework because they're so tentative and indecisive left to their own devices, like I'm supposed to psychically predict what they wnt to choose.

As a DM, one of your primary jobs is to adapt to the players and do shit on the fly.
Even if OP has a million NPCs and plotlines planned out in advance, he should be able to slot at least SOME of them into a story that the players wish to create.

That's all well and good when you have all the freetime in the world but some GMs have jobs and lives outside of their game group (shocking I know) and barely have the time to figure out the next few days travel ahead of the players' current position, let alone in whatever direction they want to go, especially if it means tossing out everything done thus far.

As much as the GM should work and make sure players have fun stuff to when they choose it, so should the players respect that the GM isn't just their robotic plot machine. It's collaborative, not just for the sake of players.

Promise them their own kingdom if they follow the main questline and surpass the tests.

This is how it's done, this is how you fucking GM.
So you're response is "fuck you all i won't GM, stop being little cunts and play my way"? Really that's a fucking retarded way to do think, it's fine telling your players i don't wanna run this kinda game "If the other players agree with him? Then you can tell them okay, one of them can DM and you can go play Overwatch or something until they either find another DM or they stop being a bunch of whiners and wanna play what you wanna play". This is a bullshit attitude towards your players this is bad GMing. It's fine telling your players i'm not interested in this kind of campaign and maybe someone else should run this kind of campaign because it's not fun for me, that's rational and fine, but then to be a little bitch about it and tell them well then i won't GM unless you play the way i want. If you were GMing my group and the group wanted to play a certain way like build an empire and we all agreed and you gave us that attitude we'd tell you to fuck off and stop playing with you rather than have you guilt us into playing your way.

I should mention this is under the assumption the players ARE responding like little shits you know.

If you say "Okay I don't wanna run this kind of game" and they just shrug and go "alright" then that's fine problem solved.

You only get angry with them if they start getting angry with you about it, at which point it was clear the group wasn't gonna work out if something like this could set them off.

I don't know if this is a thing, but it feels like as I get older groups tend to stray away from really open world campaigns and prefer more linear, or at least set, games that are either prewritten campaigns or something written by the GM in advance. Maybe it's because we're getting busy so need something more focused.

That or they go about making their own kingdom in the most retarded, half-assed way possible and then get mad at the gm when they get completely out maneuvered by fuckers that maneuver for a living.

Honestly, as long as it wasn't a complete "Rocks fall, everyone dies" ending, that would have actually been an amusing and creative way to bring the main plot back up after the players had accomplished their personal goals.

A good GM doesn't punish players for not adhering to a plot, but doesn't let them escape the consequences of their actions. Kind of like being a parent, I'd think...

First off, go fuck yourself. Secondly, as a GM, your job is whatever you make of it, because you make the rules.

I work more than I sleep and get drunk on the regular, yet I can manage to GM my group just fine no matter what kind of adventures they wanna go on.
Here's what you do: create a large general setting, with few details, maybe just ideas of what locations might be where in a given country. Or in other words, create a sand box. Spend a week or two doing this before you even start playing with the group at all, and make the setting general enough that you could theoretically use this same setting several times with the same party and they wouldn't notice.
If the players aren't invested in your game, all of your hard work goes to waste anyway, right? May as well make the work easier on yourself. Alternatively, do the least retarded thing possible and have a session zero where you...
ACTUALLY FUCKING DISCUSS THIS SHIT WITH YOUR PLAYERS
like I did.

In any case either OP's players need to quit being gay, because what's likely to happen is what says anyway, or they need to find a new DM, or OP just needs to adapt and embrace a different style of DMing.

It's not even about out-maneuvering half the time, it's because they'll throw such a left field idea that we end up doing something that's quickly slapped together or I have to find a way to shoehorn encounters they haven't seen yet into their new weird direction. Then later on they go "Well that was a weird session", while when they keep focused on the story I had time to write then they get excited and talk about what happened.

Like I said, they like to SAY they want to go off the rails, but in reality they enjoy the rails best.

Different guy here. That's completely the wrong approach to take toward any position of power.

Can't tell if bait or autism. Either way, nobody should put you in charge of anything.

The problem is when one particular player pulls this shit, it's easy when the whole group says they want to do it because then you can say "Okay fellas, well I didn't really prepare for that so let's either run what I have prepared and I'll work on that plotline for next session or we can stop early and I'll make sure I work on it for next time"

But when one player goes "Whoops I stab the King, looks like I'm King now" and throws a wrench in the gears it can be a hassle.

But the same can also be said of the players. The other side of this argument is "The GM must do whatever the players want"

The entitlement is on the OP and people who want players to follow their story even if the players all agree to want to go a separate way than the GM wants. This is the kind of bullshit that appears in tabletop games the GM "play my way or fucking else" bullshit. If you want it so badly go write a fucking novel.
Exactly
So you decide what kind of games you want your players to play without the players getting a say. This is the worst kind of GMing bullshit.

The players get a say, because they come to the table.

The problem isn't that I'm not going with their flow, it's that when I say "Okay, fine, what do you want to do" they don't actually have an answer.

If the players want to go in some direction they have to give me something to work with so I can build off it. I'm not a mind reader yet.

Oh of course, if one player is going full retard, go ahead and drop rocks on him, especially if the other players aren't cool with it or if it interrupts their plans.
The operating assumption here seems to be that OP is dealing with a group rather than a single player; but rereading the OP perhaps that assumption is wrong. But in any case, what's important to take away from this is
>GMs shouldn't railroad their players
>If players want to create the story, the GM should, in general, allow this to happen
>Have a session zero
>Create a sandbox and have some extra NPCs in case of emergencies

This is the other side of the issue: players who want something but don't know how to even take the first step towards achieving their half-baked agenda. In this case, you should (and probably have to) put out the railroad, even if only for a little bit. Dangle a plot in their face, and once they get their bearings go ahead and let them take the helm.

>all this entitlement from fa/tg/uy's.
Lmao.
This is why most of y'all are posting in gamefinder threads and applying to get into roll20 games like a cuck.
I bet most of you think you're entitled to play drow and tieflings as well.
Or change the name of the paladin order in the world to "fit your character"
Y'all need to kill yourselves.
Entitled fucks.
Try running a game yourself.
Like I have been doing for 12+ years now.
Then you can talk.
OP handle their bid for power realistically.
Once they become a threat to the king, he employs powerful shot to wipe them out. Don't worry about challenge rating. King doesn't fuck around.
Then let the chips fall as they may.
If the party somehow wins, well, maybe they do deserve to be in power.
They can help make history for your next campaign to be based off of.

I feel like this post I made earlier is a terrible version of posts like this:

Which is equally wrong. Compromise is key.

So what you're saying is that the GM should run whatever the players want regardless of his own preference?

Say the GM wants to run a good campaign this time around and the players come in wanting to play an evil party, you think it's reasonable to expect the GM to shut up and put up with it? Nobody's going to enjoy that.

When the players want to play a game the GM doesn't want to run, then it's absolutely the right choice for the GM to quit and for the players to find another GM.

So you literally just suggested that OP do the EXACT THING that several of the people you quoted told him to do, meanwhile calling them all entitled and ignoring that at least one of those posts is made by a DM. Good job, lay off the drink.

Long time GM here, I run three different games a week, never had a problem, here's what I do.

My games are, frankly, a railroad, but they're littered with options and branching paths and variables. I prepare a week in advance because you focus on making the story and options compelling, if you succeed, then players TYPICALLY not care to go in weird directions. If a player is looking for an out of the box option it's usually because they're bored or distracted.

I've dealt with players who like to suggest weird ideas, but if you give them enough options they will inevitably land on one of them by group decision. Sure, it's possible the group may conspire to kill the local lord, but then they might miss out on the tantalizing plot behind Door #1 or Door #2

>as I get older
>we're getting busy
God I hate fuckers like you. People who are casuals and don't belong in the hobby, who try to fit it all in and make an entire group suffer for it. Fucking cocksucking bastard. One of my friends got spermjacked and basically put one of our campaigns on permanent hiatus. I also had to constantly wake up early and clean my apartment for people to come over because it was the only time we could play. Faggots who work 70 hours a week and have kids and then start campaigns, then let "real life" get in the way, are fucking assholes who need to drown in a swimming pool. Don't give me that shit. YOU chose the job you have. YOU chose to have children. I use a condom and I fucking take it with me. Never trust these bitches. If you have a shitload of responsibilities, it is YOUR fault. Get out of my game. I feed and water myself, and that's all I need to do. You have kids? Well if you cant make a session cause you have to stay home and "watch the little guy," tough shit. We're playing without you. Have fun finding a game on rolls that fits your autistic schedule, jackass!!!!!

Genuinely good bait.

...

Again, different dude here.

>Gm wants to run a good campaign this time around
>players come in wanting to play an evil party

If there's ever such a massive disconnect between GM expectations and player expectations, it's everyone's fault for being fucking stupid and not communicating.

If I decide to try and GM a game for random strangers on Roll20, I'll be perfectly clear in stating what kind of game I want to run and how I want to run it. If I'm a player joining a random game, I'll ask what the expectations are so I don't blunder in like a moron, maybe ask to quietly observe a session before I join. If I'm playing with friends I know IRL, I'll usually already know everyone's tendencies and preferences already. I don't understand how things could go any differently.

Then that's fine if you tell them you don't want to Gm that way and they start being obnoxious cunts about it fine then they can find a new GM and they need to grow the fuck up because they're acting like assholes.
Not really i've played a long fucking time and i'm ok with open, less linear games.
Then that's the player's fault, tell them that, point out what they did wrong and what caused it. Call them out on it.
These posts.
Or..or they wanted to go off the rails but either you didn't let them or they thought you'd be mad at them for going off the rails and stop being their friend or part of their group.
This is how it's done.
If the players unanimously agree to it otherwise you might as well write a fucking novel. Remember you don't have a game without players.
And that's reasonable as GM it's also your part to try and come up with something to meet players half way. They told you they all want to become merchants and don't know how, you go alright and you should know how to meet them halfway and kickstart them. Players and the GM must meet half way.

10/10 had a hearty laugh.
You might well be being serious, which makes it all the more hilarious. In fact I agree with you, in spite of the fact that I'm a busy fucker myself. Never take on a job you can't fulfill, and don't make commitments you won't keep.

I can tell you actually GM because of how fucking nosy you are.

>wasting pizza
Ugh.

Were you the same dude who had that thread drunkenly ranting about how much he hated newfags and casuals in 40K?

If so, either lay off the sauce or just go ahead and give yourself alcohol poisoning. You're a cancer here on Veeky Forums.

If all of his posts are as funny as the one ITT then he can stay, for all I care.
Drink to your heart's content, user!

Underrated post.

First thing I thought when reading this was "lol like fucking Griffith did" and that'd work for a campaign if you don't mind a lil boatride sidequest.

I already explained this before the GM can say that's not what he/she wants and tell them they can get someone else to GM it. I didn't say to force the GM to run the game the player's way. On the other side the same must apply to the GM, the GM cannot force the players to play their way otherwise they might find themselves without players and the players will find a GM who'll run their campaign. So the GM cannot force the players either.

Yeah i mean why shouldn't a player be allowed to play a tiefling or drow there are plenty of reasons they can be in the party. It's not entitlement to allow players to create characters or pick races they genuinely want to play as. It's called ROLEPLAYING.

I hope no one never loves you. I hope you quip with your friends that you're enjoying the bachelor life and relationships aren't really "working out" for you right now, but the loneliness quietly eats at you like a few drops of acid in your chest. I hope your friends all do find happiness and that they gradually drift away from you as they have less and less to relate to you with. I hope your mom starts just sighing wistfully when you visit instead of asking you when you're going to bring home a pretty girl and a grandchild. I hope you have plenty of time and money for fucking meaningless and empty vacations for one because there isn't anything else to do with it. I hope when the cold embrace of death comes for you, it's in a bare and unvisited hospital room, without even a candy striper to hold your hand.

campaign i was in until recently had a PC that wanted to usurp the throne being he was last in line to be king among his siblings. DM convinced him to have us quest in neighboring countries and territories solving big quest plots to gain allies for the inevitable coup.

This has been a very fun thread

If everyone is on board and it's not just one guy fuck it, could be fun

>how do I deal with players starting a bunch of shit on their own and saving me they trouble

I cut my per session prep time down to 30 minute and catch a little extra always sunny or breaking bad?

This is how you GM if all the players agree and you the GM agree to run it, then let the players do it.

>he doesn't set up his power hungry players to have power eventually

It's called player agency ad there's nothing wrong with players wanting to change the in-game world and interact more with it.

He just leads them on, GM is a tease.

>tieflings
Why did this become a meme?
I play a lot of Tieflings, in games where they exist, simply because I think they look cool. Either the 'generic tiefling', or some of the more customized shit you can do instead.

the thing about shit gms is that they dont know how to adapt to players
this is why if someone is the gm and tries to force the group to party up so they dont have to follow seperate storylines I just leave

you need to be there to provide a setting and send interesting shit at players not force them into a set story and path layed out by you

No such thing as a good parent.

This guy gets it.

OP is really taking it up the ass here and kinda deservingly so. You are the GM, your job is to build the world in-game along with locations, histories, NPCs, to moderate your group and make sure one player isn't being an asshole but the most important part of your job as a GM is to be a facilitator and make sure your players are having fun. Your job isn't to force your will on them, to force them on a story or to force how they play or what they can play as. The end.

This is what I hope for myself.

>this is why if someone is the gm and tries to force the group to party up so they dont have to follow seperate storylines I just leave
considering that separate storylines multiplies the amount of work the DM has to do, it's not that unreasonable to expect the party to stick together most of the time
I would say that dms should be able to adapt the overall storyline to the player's whims, but expecting them to create fully realized stories for each character in the party to play by themselves is a shit ton of work and goes against the general spirit of collaboration

Then base your game around that. Players want to take over the region? Local duke wirships satan. Players want to franchise taverns across the continent? This puts yhem in the perfect place to be info-brokers in a world of dangerous political intrigue. Think big picture, be flexible, and let your players have fun.

There is such thing as adapting the existing storyline and there's players going 180 on everything you planned for the session. I mean, certain type of GM can wing it on the fly, but such GM won't usually bother to plan much beyond the basic premise in the first place.

There's nothing wrong with them not playing as a party and sticking together. You can play up drama and intrigue. Best way is to create a setting instead of a huge world filled with kingdoms where players have to travel to. Put them in a particular place and create a setting like a school with wizards etc. Have them explore their characters throw in a few twists and turns here and there once in a while, like someone is bullying a friend of the characters while another PC is being accused of using magical steroids to get ahead at athletics. Sorta like Harry Potter meets Breakfast Club.

You can play up inter-PC relationships and what do they do when they realize maybe a teacher is maybe doing something illegal and how do they confront the teacher and expose him/her.

In that case, they are more or less grouped up.
It's fine if they're all in the same school or wherever, but if they're halfway across the world from one another? It's a huge pain in the ass to plan ahead for, and it's also probably not a ton of fun for players at the table, as the DM has only one mouth, so he can only really be super involved with one person at a time if they're split up.

Be grateful you have players who put in effort. Roll with it.

Yes all in the same school, Which would be fun. You can also have the players take up parts of the NPCs like the close friend of a PC. The thing that would tie the PCs together are they all go to the same school, so there's drama, intrigue, maybe one wants to get into that big ivy league magic university,l another wants to gain a Quiddich or some magical sport scholarship to play in the big leagues in college or maybe go professional or one wants to become prom queen. Have them have goals and play out the drama and maybe throw in something along the way of you find out another student is using magic outside school when we're not allowed to or find out one of the magic club students is planning something awful for the prom to get his revenge on the more popular students.

You're obviously having fun thinking about all the details about this particular setting, but I'm thinking in more general terms, the more separation between your party members, the more work you have to do, not only before the session, but also after it.
I think it's fair to ask that players have a little bit of respect for not only the DM's time but also their own time.

So instead of being a wandering party who travels two kingdoms over to fight a big evil wizard guy they can be sitcom characters with a brawny barbarian who sells shoes and hates his job coming home to his family and have them play up the jokes and hilarity.

Just use what motivates your players as plot hooks instead. It's not hard.

Yeah i guess it takes work but it's not to say that they can't play any other way than as a wandering adventuring party who always work together. With some work and if the group agrees it's something they would enjoy the GM and players can meet halfway and make it work. It sure would be a more interesting campaign.

I feel that this could make for a good pasta, and saving it up for later deployment.

what point is there in the party in the first place then? why not just make it a single person who a bunch of people are controlling since pea brain DM cant keep track of storylines or find a way to kae their paths cross

no no no its always gotta start at the bar where all your party members get together and decide to journy together because if you wanna leave the party youll have to roll a 20 on every step or else youre gonna fucking die (ive had a GM do this)

like if you want to play our your planned out storyline then fucking write a book

Sure, but just saying as a principle the DM should always suck it up if a party splits up is just silly.

You could trow in some more stuff like 21 Jump Street and a bit of Dawson's Creek as you see fit as the GM. It would be heavier on the roleplaying, but if the players are up for it and the GM is i don't see why the players don't have to all play together. If you really want them all to be working together put them all together as a team and have them roleplay their characters coming together as a magical sports team to win against the competing sports team from two kingdoms over, turn it into a sports drama.

No i'm saying if the GM is up for it and players agree they can run a different campaign, they must meet each other halfway.
It's less of a planned out storyline than a laid out setting, since they players in the setting have free will they can compete against or co-operate with one another or have their paths cross. it's the setting that brings them all together. The setting is actually much looser than you think it is and less railroaded and rigid. the setting is just that...a background a sandbox for the players to play in.

The party doesn't have to all be bunched into "you all work together as a group now" that mentality is too conventional. They can all be a group who share the same setting. For example a bunch of people who find themselves trapped in a diner during a zombie apocalypse or alien invasion or cops working the same department in Brooklyn. The party can exist in a setting without need to be a group all put together working towards a common end you can have a cop drama or sitcom, have players interact with other players and have players play other minor characters (optional) interacting with other PCs.

Besides students at a school they can be members of a news organization throw in things like their network is getting defended maybe someone on the higher up is planning to sell the station or some member of their news agency is being getting mysterious tips from extremely shady sources or one of their colleagues is missing and hasn't come in for quite a while. Play up the drama and suspense, build a conspiracy for the players to get into.

>Players who want to ignore questlines and plot hooks to make their own country or some shit

I roll with it. I would love if my players had things like 'ambitions' or 'drive'.